INTERVIEW || Everything remains open: faced with the “fundamental disagreement” between the USA, Denmark and Greenland, the Europeans seem ready to defend the largest island in the world with everything they have — but “it is also difficult to imagine Trump backing down at this stage”, Klaus Dodds, geopolitics expert and co-author of an important book on “the fight for the future of the Arctic” tells CNN.
When we contact Klaus Dodds, the university professor is arriving in Copenhagen for a meeting dedicated to Greenland, one of the hot topics in geopolitics since the beginning of the year and the guiding thread of this interview.
Upon returning to London, the interim rector of Middlesex University and co-author of the book (2025) tells CNN that “the Danes and Greenlanders are shocked and no one expects this matter to be resolved soon.”
“This really had a big impact on the kingdom”, says the geopolitics expert. “Denmark was one of the first countries to express support for the US after 9/11 [quando o país invocou o artigo 5.º da NATO] and there is a palpable sense of betrayal of the highest order.”
There are many arguments to try to explain Trump’s interest in controlling Greenland – namely for reasons of “national security”. However, Trump’s claim about Russian and Chinese military forces lurking around the island has already been debunked. What do you think about this?
China and Russia are a much greater concern on the other side of the Arctic, around Alaska, because of their joint sea and air patrols. Trump is concerned that they may begin to gather in greater numbers and frequency on the Greenland and Canadian side. He believes that both Canada and Greenland are incapable of defending the North American Arctic.
Greenland and the quest for it are driven by a number of factors, but I believe this desire for Western Hemisphere dominance is powerful, along with Trump’s desire to help make America great again by expanding it [territorialmente].
Another argument often invoked to explain their interest in the island is related to the critical minerals that – but also here several experts believe that the extraction of these resources would be extremely difficult and expensive…
Minerals are a long-term play and the outlook for Greenland is modest — the US has much more promising mineral developments [noutras regiões].
In one of his recent articles, he addresses the current situation in the face of Trump’s threats, from the North American president abandoning these aspirations to the promised “forcible” annexation. Which scenario would you say is most likely to come to fruition?
My fear is that the US will lose patience and simply threaten to take over unless Greenland enters into a free association agreement as an independent nation. The other possibility is a new agreement that leases Greenland to the US so that the US can enjoy military rights and resources.
That said, it’s hard to imagine Trump backing down at this stage.
He says that “the harsh reality is that this appears to be part of a new world of expansionist authoritarian monarchism, rather than a world based on agreements, frameworks, norms, rules and treaties.” In this context, what could this mean for other countries and regions, from the Arctic states, in particular Svalbard, to Ukraine?
I think Ukraine will get a “peace deal” that will give Russia the eastern territories and the US will demand a heavy price for putting an end to the conflict for now. Trump wants to be a peacemaker and win the Nobel Peace Prize.
I think if Trump keeps Greenland, there is a risk that Putin will move on Svalbard in a post-Ukraine deal era. It is Norwegian territory and Trump will not care if he keeps Greenland. Putin wants Svalbard for bastion defense.
On the ground in front of one of Trump’s buildings in New York someone wrote in chalk: “Dear Panama and Greenland: forgive me, he is an idiot. — America” (Getty Images)
Regarding the so-called “Donroe Doctrine”: if Trump is determined to dominate the Western Hemisphere, would you say he could also consider the possibility of conquering the Azores? Is this in line with the current US National Security Strategy (ESN)?
The challenge is really this: where does the dominance of the Western Hemisphere begin and where does it end? In Bermuda, the Azores, the Canary Islands and so on? The ESN does not define what corresponds to the Western Hemisphere… there is a creative ambiguity.
Some geographers, however, define the Western Hemisphere as the half of the Earth that lies west of the Greenwich meridian (prime meridian, 0° longitude) continuing to the 180th meridian.
NATO may not be officially dead yet, but it appears to be, at the very least, in a deep coma. Do you see any chance of this Greenland dilemma serving as an opportunity for the rest of the member states to rethink the alliance and find ways to strengthen it without the US, alongside their own bilateral partnerships?
It is really difficult to imagine that NATO will ever be the same again. Greenland has revealed a deep rupture and that they will do what they can to protect Denmark – especially because, if they don’t, who will be next? Furthermore, I think there is hope that if they are seen doing security work, Trump might feel like he has made his point about security misuse.
But the real question is this: how can European allies ever truly trust the United States again?
